John Rawls Theory Of Justice Essay

In A Theory of Justice, John Rawls argues for the theory of “justice as fairness,” a theory that is grounded in the hypothetical contract of the original position. Ronald Dworkin argues against the practicality and applicability of a doubly hypothetical agreement, - “a hypothetical question about hypothetical reactions” - which occurs in original position (D’Agostino). Here, I will explore Rawls’s arguments and assess the legitimacy of Rawls’s assumptions and claims. I will also discuss the arguments on social contracts in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. I will argue against parts of Dworkin’s argument to prove that Rawls’s hypothetical contract is valid, and I will take aspects from Dworkin’s argument to show ways in which Rawls’s original position could be improved. Mostly, I will defend Rawls’s social contract, and I will prove that it is appropriate given the context of Rawls’s theory of justice. Rawls defines a just society as one that “everyone accepts and knows that the others accept the same principles of justice” (Rawls, 4). He understands that each man has a different conception of justice and that men will disagree on what
However, Rawls’s description of the veil of ignorance fails to take into account certain traits that would play an influence into the parties’ identities and, thus, the principles the parties agree upon. For example, Rawls does not mention race as a factor in the original position. He writes, “...nor does anyone know his fortune in the distribution of natural assets and abilities,” but race does not seem to be considered a “natural asset” (Rawls, 11). Race would play a huge role in one’s conception of justice, as a black party in the original position may have a different perception of how race should be treated in principles of justice than a white party would